Im using jews as an example to his arguing, but good job connecting that point 👌. JP is making the point but wording it into a trap that people get caught on. Intellectuals don't do this because its dishonest and is literally nonsense in actual intellectual work. You would write a thesis toting that line and backing off, why would you with an intellectual point? Oh, its because he isn't one and is just appealing to his fanbase which want to help label him an intellectual.
lol I don't think you're really in a position to be snide about me "missing the point" when you've spent like 30 minutes just restating the same thing without ever acknowledging that JBP didn't leave anything up to interpretation here. He has told you in clear wording what enforced monogamy means: social and cultural enforcement of monogamy, for the good of society.
I don't think anyone accused him of hating jews. The problem, as others have suggested, is that his tendency to dog-whistle to alt-right/politically radical groups gives those groups legitimacy through ambiguity. An example of this is in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8AcmzqFdPM
Where it is shown that Peterson presents his view in lectures that the nazis did not commit the holocaust because they hated jews, but because they were driven to act against their will to reenact roles from biblical stories. While he does spend a moment to clarify to hand wave that nazis are bad, actual neo-nazis gain legitimacy from his lack of knowledge of historical circumstances allowing them to gain an essence of academic authority in their goal to rewrite history so that the nazis did nothing wrong. Their goal, which Peterson helps due to his lack of knowledge on the area, is to distance their view of an ethno-nationalist ideology based on the nazis from the actual historical irrational genocides driven by said ideology. Anything that takes focus away from the ideology as the culprit, essentially spinning it into a thing that 'just happened', serves to benefit that aim.
Here's a good, well-reasoned rebuttal to Jordan Peterson's points in this article:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201805/monogamy-and-violence?amp
I'm glad other people see this too because a mate stopped talking to me when he asked what i thought of peterson and I said basically this.
I dont mind the guy but i keep seeing racist shit being said and then followed with a quote from Peterson.
How would you actually go about achieving this goal of social and cultural enforcement of monogamy? What is the acceptable way of going about this aim? Is it acceptable to publicly harass and shame people for divorcing their partners? Is it acceptable to harass and shame homosexuals for being sexual deviants and weakening the social fabric of traditional monogamous relationships between a man and a woman?
These are the questions we should be asking. When you leave these points intentionally vague then you are not considering the full ramifications of the statements being made, and it makes the statement ambiguous and open to interpretation by extreme/radical political groups.
I honestly don't think it's possible outside of a religiously minded community that imbues marriage and monogamy with some sort of sacred significance.
And any such enforcement would ultimately have to happen with the aid of the State, which feeds back to the points that he was being accused of.
can we talk about how blatantly he tipped his hand with this? Like, if he was giving a speech at a sociology seminar or something and people made a big deal about his usage of the phrase "enforced monogamy" then him getting all uppity about how everyone's misunderstanding his terminology because they haven't read the literature might have some validity to it, but he was giving an interview to the new york times. If you're going to go through a mainstream outlet, you either take the time to define your jargon or you just don't use it.
Either he's that bad at public speaking that he didn't consider how your average person would interpret the word "enforced" (in which case he's on par with the average neckbearded pseudointellectual who uses big words to sound smart without considering context) or he intentionally used misleading language so that he would have the opportunity to claim his critics are uninformed.
ding ding ding
Quite honestly, he probably did define it. If the NBC interview is anything to go by, then it wouldn't surprise my if the NYT deliberately left out the parts that make the rest sound reasonable, and not to mention the fact that they didn't even release the actual interview. But, I can see the hate-boner this thread seems to have about him so I wouldn't expect you to allow him that charity.
As rrkkp_ was saying, it's pretty clear what he means by 'enforced monogamy' as a social, cultural push for increased monogamy in society. The part that alarms people is the ambiguity involved in the implications of the idea. I don't think that there really could have been anything 'left out' that would make the rest of what was said sound more reasonable, as the views expressed in the article are completed thoughts rather than sentence fragments and Peterson himself wrote a blog post clarifying what he meant.
I would think he would go with "the media is intentionally misrepresenting me by omitting things that I said" before he'd go with "you're all dumb for not automatically understanding what I meant lol"
To think that he meant for the state to enforce monogamy through authoritarian law would be in opposition to everything else he's ever said. In the context of what he's said before, only someone already out to make him look bad would think otherwise.
Well the soundbite of "calls for enforced monogamy" certainly needs clarification if one is not familiar with it as a technical term. The fact that elaboration was needed is evident in his need to make a clarifying blog-post in the first place. With that post in mind it is unclear what part of the overall opinion is objectionable. Certainly, the way in which this cultural enforcement is brought about has some lee-way to scare a reader, but with the rest of his views taken as context it would seem obvious that he doesn't mean any sort actual totalitarian reading. At most he could be accused of wishing that marriage was more promoted as an important value in today's society.
Donald Trump is a conservative intellectual in the sense that his ideas influence conservative policy.
1 and 2 do not really contradict each other, as 3 can serve as an answer to this discrepancy.
That being said, what do you base your belief on in points 3, 4 and 5? You seem to speak with much certainty, so I wonder why that is.
In addition, what constitutes a viable, ideologically-consistent solution to such a problem (if one even considers it a structural problem), in your estimation?
lmao it's so fitting that JP would outsource his post-hoc bullshitting to his fans.
He's not seriously calling casual sex evil, is he?
Okay, it's Jordan Peterson so he might legitimately be that stupid but still.
I've posted this before, but my favourite thing about Jordan Peterson is that his supporters constantly pull up his academic credentials to validate his views, which is ironic because before Peterson, they'd go on about how the whole of academia was "left wing" and dominated by the dreaded Ess Jay Dubyas
Well, I'm sure his supporters will be along to tell us that he didn't actually mean that, and what he actually meant any minute now.
Yes, yes he is. Peterson does not like this new age where women can actually be choosy about their partners which promotes a hook up culture as people no longer have to get married to get laid.
I know 2 transwomen and a nonbinary AFAB person who's on testosterone all in a poly relationship together would this make Jordan's head explode
JP is just a stereotypical neck-beard/"""incel""" who's been reading dictionaries and thesauruses for too long. The guy isn't remotely intelligent, he's just adept at grandiloquence - shoving loads of long and fancy words to put together his absolute non-point of "i don't get laid and men should take out their anger on woman". Guy's a nutjob, really surprised anyone gives him the time of day. The fact anyone here is defending him is unsurprising, but shocking to actually see,
My dad keeps telling me to check this guy out because he "Talks about things that nobody else is willing to" or whatever. From what he was telling me I thought this guy sounded like a generic dickhead with an inflated sense of self importance drumming up controversy without actually saying much and judging by what I'm seeing here I think I was right. Didn't know this guy was into this kind of garbage though.
It's bizarre and a bit disappointing. My dad is a legitimately smart guy, far too intelligent for this kind of shit. He's knowledgeable about a lot of different things, constantly strives to learn new things, is very well read and most importantly knows how to construct a good argument. Yet for some fucking reason he gives people like this his attention more often than he should. I can't get my head around it. He himself could make better arguments than this goober and definitely wouldn't start one as monumentally retarded as this in the first place.
Never thought I'd defend JP are you purposely being obtuse lmao. His idea of 'enforced monogamy' is that it is a social construct, and 'genetic monogamy' a natural phenomenon. Like how gender is a construct and biological sex is natural.
What bugs me the most about this is that it implies that men are ravenous beasts who will wreck a toll on society unless they have a woman. How little faith do you have in men for that to make sense?
Or it's just acknowledging what has been found to be...?
How can people go on about "toxic masculinity" as being a problem for society and at the same time disagree with what Jordan Peterson is saying? Is it because he's a conservative and the idea of agreeing with him is painful?
I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that the expectations placed on men -- or rather, perhaps, the expectations men feel are placed on them -- can be extremely toxic. That's the basis of "toxic masculinity". It is one of the single greatest insecurities men face: not being good enough to get a mate. Is this something that men should be insecure about? Probably not (though there may be some evolutionary implications, but who's to say). But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It's also very disheartening to see the complete assassination of the word "incel". It literally means involuntarily celibate. It by itself does not inherently contain any sexist ideology (unless you also agree that Feminism, by nature of its bad actors, inherently contains sexist ideology). It is ridiculous to deny that there are absolutely, without doubt, a number of people on this planet that will never get to have sex solely by virtue of their circumstances. When compounded with the fact that our society sends a very clear message to men from birth that they are defined by how successful they are, both professionally and sexually, it becomes a real problem. Someone who legitimately believes (whether it's grounded in reality or not) that they will never be capable of having sex (one of the most defining attributes of human existence), that they will forever be unable to relate to their peers on this, is a victim of these societal pressures. Does that excuse the toxic ideology and sexism present in the "incel community"? Obviously not, but those bad actors do not define everyone who suffers from this insecurity.
Imagine you're someone who believes that, due to their own imperfections, they will never be able to be with someone romantically or sexually. Every day you are reminded that getting a partner is something you need to be doing (or already have done long ago). You're pretty ugly (not that all those who claim to be "incels" are indeed ugly), and you have low self-esteem. You try to talk to people about your issues, but they either brush you off or can't truly relate, even if they try. Eventually, you find a group of people who are struggling with your exact issue, who can relate to you in a way that "normal people" can't. They're people who welcome you not only despite the things you hate about yourself, but because of them. People, at their core, crave belonging, and you've finally found it. Some people you're talking to start saying some hateful rhetoric, which isn't really what you signed up for, but you're afraid of making waves with your newfound group, for fear that they too will reject you. So you just deal with it, and try to focus on what you want out of it, which is really just a support group. Eventually, though, you will probably be primed against women and/or society in general as a result of being a part of this group. This is textbook radicalization.
The hateful rhetoric and sexism is inexcusable. You don't get a free pass just because you're sad. However, it's also crucial that we as a society try to actually understand why someone is being hateful.
It saddens me that the response to this isn't "why are these people so angry and how can we go about fixing this". This does not mean "give incels what they want". This means that we should look at what might cause someone to become so far gone and try to change the way we operate. The expectations we put on men (and women) are unfair. They create insecurity and self-hatred. The response to incels isn't "lmao they're just mad they're not getting pussy", it's "wow, our society's expectations are fucked up." Mocking someone who is suffering from insecurities by further validating their insecurities can only result in a bad outcome.
Theres like a dozen of these dipshits saying "things nobody else is willing to" who make more in a month on Patreon than I do in a year.
That makes no sense. If not having a woman caused men to violent, gay men would be terrifying. I don't think incels even want sex because if it was sex, they could find it if they really wanted to. They're lonely and they only group they feel identifies with them is a group that has a toxic hatred of women.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
